tv Washington Journal CSPAN June 23, 2013 7:00am-10:01am EDT
a discussion on the recent iranian presidential elections. "washington journal" is next. news from several sources that edward snowden, the nsa contractor wanted by the united states, has left hong kong for a third country. not quite sure where he is heading. we will continue to follow the story and give you information as it comes out throughout the course of this morning's "washington journal" program. july 4weekend before the congressional break. a president may -- the president set to make a major speech. we are reading in the washington
post there are actions coming. the senate takes a vote on immigration reform tomorrow. we the student loan rates, might see a doubling of interest rates unless congress acts by july 1. we want to get your thoughts as a lot is being written and spoken this weekend on this topic. colorado -- --call some of the writings on the student loan issue this morning --
here is a little bit from our weekly address. it came from congressman john klein. [video clip] >> our students deserve better. what we need is the long term solution to get washington out of the business of setting rates altogether. fortunately, president obama agrees and in his budget he offers plans for long-term reform by tying interest rates to the market. ,art of that proposal republicans put together a
similar measure and the house passed last month, weeks before the deadline. the senate's democrats have actively blocked the president's plan and refuse to contest -- and refuse to consider hours. if i didn't know any better i would say they are content of letting rates double. what we need to move forward now is more leadership from president obama. this week speaker john boehner sent a letter to the old president. to the president. because of our efforts there are finally signs of progress towards a bipartisan plan for a long term marketplace solution. we need to finish the job, and do so soon. kline there.n times," -la -
one more short piece of tape coming from our new speaker program this week. newsmaker"from our " program this week. [video clip] >> anybody in this business understands the power of this issue. the poll was released just a couple of days ago where 84% of the public is opposed to letting the rates double or go up, rates that are far above what regular consumer rates are for products like home mortgages. the fact that mr. klein and speaker boehner did not move forward with the bill in may shows that this is an issue they need to handle with care because it cuts across every state, blue
or red, middle-class families and upper-class families are struggling with college costs. even though it does not have the exact same dynamic of a year ago in the midst of the presidential campaign, the political power of this issue is still very dangerous for either side to be on the wrong side of. that is what i do think there's going to be a lot of external .orces all theou concerned at democrats get the blame, because the republicans on the house side have acted to prevent this from happening. it did not happen on the senate side. >> i would say that any action does not necessarily mean that it is the right action. now that this thing has been out there for a few weeks and has been looked at by credible and neutral analysis that shows that
it worsens the problem, there are no student groups or campus grit -- or campus based groups think they have bought themselves some immunity or safety bypassing that measure. the peoplenot clear and families. host: to help set us all up with this we have tweet from joe's of ramirez -- and as we start to take calls of want to remind you in addition to our regular lies in having fourth line today for students. eric, atlanta, a democrat, good morning. >> thank you for taking my call.
andve a couple of comments the question you could answer. says the want to protect corporations from higher taxes and protect corporations from this protect the gop from public blame. took the loans away from the base because they were charging interest even though the loans were guaranteed by the government. the banks did not get any default because the government guarantees those loans. the 6% is targeted by the banks. those loans are guaranteed. obama took it away from the banks and issue the loans himself because the government was actually backing these loans. now they want to put it back
into the market, back into the hands of the banks so they can get their easy interest on loans that would never be defaulted on from the students. this would essentially double the rates for the student. is allowingng media the gop to -- obama was to put it back in the hands -- he wants to tie the los the market. there is no such thing as a free market. there is only a rate of it to market the gop always says -- there's no such thing as a free market. host: thank you for your call. we want to get to build from westminster, maryland. i wish somebody would respond to the issue that with the student loans the government, through the federal reserve and the government itself, has been extending loans
and money to the big banks for last four years with zero interest. up with the is run stock market in the last 4.5 years until just last month. keepan congress not when foroan rates low the last seven years they have been giving free money to the financial restitutions? out the attack, made between main street and wall street. i would like one of the host: wen congressman are back to the democrats' line. caller: can you hear me ok? the republicans are not going to
give this president a type of political initiative. they are not going to pass anything that is gonna make it appear that the president has done something. interest rates are: to double a must cup rice comes from somewhere. -- are going to double. there's a story as a about a bipartisan senate group seeking a deal. it is a coalition of senators working on a compromise to avert this impending ee. 7 million college students would be affected.
we have tony on the line now, a republican from a richmond, virginia. you for attending this subject matter. will:lly the students from your audience. this is very serious. the average institution has a loan default of more than 10%. some institutions have high as 30% loan default. having the interest rates move up and more than doubled for a period of time is unacceptable.
we have loaned multimillion of dollars that add up to more than one trillion dollars, which equals the amount of loans that are outstanding for students. our students, at 0% interest rates. i have asked the congress and political leaders to look at that. this is a national security issue. >> one more point about this compromise being worked out, there was a piece in "the huffington post" this morning --
you can read more about that in in thegton postcard -- huffington post. i really like senator warren, i believe it was her idea of loading these students the same rate -- of unloading the students at the same rate. host: we do have a piece from her we will bring up. i want to get another call in the, a student, margie. good morning.
caller: i am paying the student loans. with the interest rates going .p, it is a burden paying monthly bills, mike loan, my car, it is almost impossible to pay these loans with interest going up. host: what is your situation in north carolina? where are you going to school right now and can i ask what rate you are paying? do you know? a 6%.: i am being i started college. without student loans i would not have become a teacher. teacher. [indiscernible] without the loss i would not
have been able to get an education. -- without the loans i would not have been able to get an education. feel that them raising interest rates, we are going to see children and people not financially able to go to college because of the financial burden of these loans because the payments are getting higher and higher. it is such a burden on the family. host: thank you for calling. we have herbert in miami, a democrat. caller: if they want to see progress they should lower the lownans for students. stop thinking about obama,
congress, and xdo something for the united states. we need to get this to nothing house out of the there. host: thank you for calling. i would like to remind folks about the numbers if you want to weigh in on this student loan issue, the rates on the most popular form of loan said to increase by july 1 unless congress acts. andwe will leave those on the
"right now the government lends money to big banks and less than 1%. if congress does not act before july 1 interest rates -- congress will be -- the government will be charging our students nine times as much as they charge big banks." an independent from pennsylvania, thank you for waiting. caller: i think it touched upon some of it. there is a lot of discussion about student receiving loans at rates which banks are keeping them. the lack of jobs, the low salaries students are getting when graduating, we are not -- we are at great credit risk. even the rate we are giving them now, i would imagine the market
would action to is a credit risk for most events. flint, michigan, debbie it is on the line for democrats. i can afford my student loans. however i was told in the beginning that if i were for a public agency for 10 years they would like my lump. now they are saying when they split from direct loans to will not honor that. say we are subsidized, i do not think it is subsidized and you are making money on us. excited to be on c-span i lost my train of thought. i said enough for today. for calling in. greg from north carolina is calling. he is a republican from creed
more. caller: thank you for taking my call. i fully support the interest rates going up on student loans. whenever you agree to our morning you have to pay the loan, you have to pay that debt. it is subsidized. it was unsubsidized it would be somewhere else. obviously it is a deal or else people would -- moving on to facebook -- bobby is on the line from fitzgerald, georgia. he is an independent caller.
elizabeth warren -- and wanted to say about this loan thing, nobody can make to take out alone. did it take out a loan. loan.e out a not trying toam be cynical or anything like that, it's all they're going to --is come out as liberals pardon them with a bunch of debt is not a bad thing. -- burdening them with a budget that is not a bad thing. next caller -- in 1993 and got a grant. i was not able to pay off my student loans until 1995.
agency told me the federal government does not take all of the payments. they leave $30 a wing so they can come back five years later. they can comeo back five years later. i still get calls from collection agencies. that is what the federal government does. host: we have time for a couple of more calls. here is a tweet -- here's the update on the story we talked about at the top of the program. edward snowden, wanted by the united states for revealing too
paid on this forever. they wouldmised that eliminate that loan. there was some type of work she had to do and they would get rid of it. out the window. i just do not know what would happen if they lowered the rates for the student loans. my sister is buying a house, they may do the same thing with the mortgage. this is ridiculous. you never know where you stand. people thatst young is going to school, it is older people. they still want to continue their education. host: it is going to be a bigwig at the u.s. supreme court and we will be following it for you. "new york times" gives us a little bit of a preview --
here, a democrat, co- head. caller: we need to address the real issue, and that is the cost of education. that really is a problem that is hurting a lot of people, not so much the interest rate. that is an issue but the real long-term is the long-term costs. host: what to do about it? know professors need be paid, administrative fees need to be paid, but we need to be looking at the fees and given a strip of costs. the universities may be need to reevaluate those and see if a cost cannot come down. i did not know how to solve that problem. host: thank you to add your and others m. tomorrow we are going to have
the defense including the history of loans on -- we are going to have an event including the history of loans. the discussion will be held by the american enterprise institute. that is tomorrow on the c-span3. you will hear from a lot of the people in this the-court panel. we have robert now from mount vernon, illinois. a republican. hello. we have a problem with the education system. we have kids in high school who cannot even read and write yet. how did they even get to high school if they cannot read and write. 10 that the student loan issue. you're talking about the younger group of students. caller: they got to get there before they can get the loan. host: you have a whole readiness
issue you are talking about. sorry to interrupt you. said, ift is like i they do not know what the loan is going to be and the interest rate is, they need to prepare themselves to take that long out. calling.nk you for we appreciate anyone who called in on this hour. we will turn to the top of immigration. robert rector will be here with the heritage foundation and alex worasteh from the cato institute will take a look at immigration reform bills. us a bob cusack will give preview of the week in congress. news now from c-span radio. easterng up at noon
time today we will hear many discussions on several issues in the news when c-span radio read- chairs the talk shows -- re-airs the tv talk shows. "meet the press" starts at noon eastern. representatives lauretta sanchez, a california democrat, and mike rogers, chairman of the house intelligence committee. at 1:00 p.m. eastern, abc's "this week" re-airs. we will hear from representatives joaquin castro kelly.eckel -- gabriel gomez, the republican nominee for the open senate seat in massachusetts. "said the union the" follows at
3:00 p.m.. -- "state of the union" follows at 3:00 p.m. the sunday network tv talk shows are brought to you as a public service but the networks and c- span. c-span radio rebroadcasts the show beginning at noon eastern with meet the press, 1:00 abc's this week, at 2:00 fox news sunday, at 3:00 state of the union, and finally face the nation at 4 eastern. you can list them ridiculous listen to them all on c-span radio at 91 fm here in the washington area. on your smart phone or listen online. >> this is a challenging time
for people who are conservatives. we have not only a democratic president but quite frankly a liberal democratic president who has not only an elected but reelected after putting into place some ideas and programs that i think are very wrong- headed. the public had a chance to think about that and they did reelected. it is a challenging time. what many others are trying to do is modernize conservatism, bring it in line with the challenges the country faces not help conservatives and help the country think about how to confront the challenges of the 21st century. of opportunity for thinking about what americans in the 21st century need to change about the way change the way it governs itself.
it is challenging but it is exciting. with yuval levin tonight at 8 >> "washington journal" continues. aboutwe talk immigration as the senate has a key vote coming up on monday. and us is alex nowrasteh robert rector. good morning. let me start with you mr. rector. this big procedural matter tomorrow evening, which will clear of the way for the rest of the week, as you see the senate get ready for its own end game on immigration bill, what goes through your mind? i think it looks a lot like 1986. we gave amnesty to 3 million people and we promised we would
secure the border and we promised we would make it unlawful to hire illegal immigrants. we granted amnesty, we granted access to benefits. deal was part of the never carried a route -- carried out and that is exactly what this is. you are granting amnesty. exchange for that you're promising to build a chain-link fence at some point in the future. there is no money for that. all the things that are given away to the amnesty recipients, those are real because entitlements. there is no money here for a fence. they have to appropriate that money later. host: what you see in the senate bill? guest: i see a lot of good and a lot of bad. one of the aspects is increasing lawful immigration going forward. that is different from the
amnesty bill. 1986 was basically a legalization of the people who were here as well as a decent increase in border security. we saw that in the years after. we saw the increase in border security and internal enforcement. we did not have a legal way for people to enter the country, especially at the lowest skill levels. what this bill does is it provides a limited pass way. it is not be regulated enough but it is a step in the right direction. what will happen is we will see economic growth and benefits that accrue to americans. host: we welcome the purest phone in with their questions and comments. to phone in viewers with their questions and comments. folks did on the hill very recently, we read that the two of you took part in a closed session in the senate republican committee.
what was that like? guest: there's a lot of confusion on this issue, particularly of the idea that because immigrants make the economy, the duma stick product -- the gp larger, the citizen has to be better off. made it clear, immigration always makes the economy bigger of the immigrants themselves almost take up all of that expansion. immigrants coming in are going to take more government benefits than they are going to pay in taxes, which is almost certainly the case, then the u.s. tax payers and paying that. that is why they're going to lose six trillion dollars under this deal. host: did you take questions
from the republicans today? of the important questions at to the differences between -- >>'s research on this issue and that of the heritage foundation. the most important difference between the two areas of research is we include the economic growth, the increased economic growth that occurs because we have immigration reform. their wages, to their productivity. it has been accounted for in the past and that was have been ignored in a lot of the research on this issue. host: some of the headlines on all of this -- what does than amply scored mean?
-- dynamically scored mean? guest: a me emphasize an increase in r&d which will increase technology and the people more productive. they failed to reconcile with the fact that they were also reporting that 85% of the immigrants coming under this bill are low skill. it you wanted that technology boost what you needed was a very tiny number of scientists coming in. you do not need to give amnesty to 11 million people. you to not need to bring in a 11 million a skilled immigrants. this piece says the deficit will cut 97 -- $197 billion over 10 years. score is the only 10 and a score that exists. a is merely a score of
fantasy piece of legislation they made up the have to do with the legalization part. that study is not a score of this bill. what they did, and this is remarkable for the first time in our history, is that they took account the changes in the economy that would occur as a result of immigration. assuminghey do scoring that we just cannot change. they did for the first time and space and immigrants will increase the size of gdp. high school immigrants and all immigrants would increase the productivity of machines, capital, and business in the united states, increased economic growth, and over a 20. -- over a 20-year. to increase by -- guest: this is the same institution that as obamacare had zero cost and would pay for
itself. that was not true. -- theay a game legislation is designed so the tax revenues occur during the first 10 years. all of the expenditures occur outside the budget window people of the actual cost of legislation are hidden. -- but it went up. all of the cost of legislation are hidden. guest: what the cbo score does is it was 20 years into the future and we see some of the largest economic gain in the second 20 years, not just in the first 10. that is one way the cbo has done dramatic departure from previous studies. that is why this is one of the most interesting estimates put out by the organization. i want to sit there free-market groups from the heritage, cato has been arguing for decades. it is great to see the results as they listen to us on this issue.
host: we will start taking your calls. to remind you what the cbo is mr. rector? guest: what is missing is that it is true that when you bring low-skilled immigrants in they pay taxes. there is no account of what government spending would be. it does not include state and local spending, which would be extremely high to provide free education for the kids of all of the immigrants coming in. and heritage oecd foundation, oecd did a report on fiscal immigration. immigration costs the u.s.
taxpayers $147 billion each year. we think it is $110 billion. immigrants do not pay enough taxes, the people the services they take up over time. this bill essentially does the same thing in the only way cbo gets a positive score is leaving out the massive expenditures and almost all of the future social security and get amnesty means recipients and immigrants would get. none of that is included in the score. -- toan allusion to gain pretend that the government does not cost anything. guest: it concludes at the end that the fiscal impact of immigration on the government of the united states is just not large enough to convince people one way or the other about immigration. it is really not a factor when we talk about immigration going
forward. furthermore, the heritage study is not lie. it is the only study done it the way this. p. ignore many of the economic benefits. -- they ignore many of the economic benefits. it is not an economic study, more than accounting exercise. host: we have a call from west palm, florida. good morning. you are on with robert rector and alex nowrasteh. caller: i used to be a democrat but i had to leave the party because of the narrative. this is not about immigration, this is a bill to help deal with the illegal immigration that has happened. i do not know who comes up with this number. last year it was 12 million. i work for a government agency. for the past 20 years i have seen illegal immigrants in every state in this nation. there is no where near a 11
million. it is probably three times that. the shadows, no one is in the shadows. they come to my post office for the past 20 years, they come into any grocery store where i want to go. they get benefits. all the have to do is have one kid. system, whatroken is broken is we have laws that no one wants to enforce. right.that is exactly in 1986 we granted amnesty to small number of people. we got many more recipients than we anticipated, in part because a quarter of the people simply committed fraud. cbo says this bill does not cost much is because they anticipate only 5
million illegal immigrants are ultimately going to receive benefits and pass on to get green cards. the number could be three times as high. the minimum we have is 11 million illegal immigrants. the cbo says half of them are never going to get any type of special benefit. substantialof benefit. in 1986 we granted amnesty. the promised in particular that it would be illegal -- we promised in particular that it would be illegal to hire immigrants. that law has not been enforced for a single day since 1986. does the new bill enforce that law? absolutely not. it makes it a promise that sometime in the future we might in force that law. it takes the current employment irritation system -- employment verification system, throw it into the trash can. "you can trust us this time." host: that last caller is not an
uncommon thing. guest: it is true that some people get welfare benefits. we agree holy that the welfare state is a problem in the united states. i just recognize the numbers show it is broken regardless of the number of people we have here. what is interesting is a weekend report we did back in march showed that poor immigrants in you that states are far less likely to use government benefits than poor americans. thats not fool ourselves the welfare problem is a domestic problem. if we need to build a wall from the welfare state and think should do it. this legislation goes part of the way there. there are improvements that could be made going forward. welfare is the problem, it does not immigration, it is not poor people, it is the welfare state that is the problem. increasing the flows of people coming here and future will add to the economy and because all wealthier as a result.
we should not ignore the impact. we cannot take a look at government and cut it to come up with a response for that. the average illegal and the great -- illegal immigrant has a 10th grade education. new immigrantson come in who have below average education is not building a wall rhumba welfare state, it is expanding welfare state and create additional costs. the fact of the matter is there is no way in the world that an individual with a 10th grade education possibly pays enough in taxes to pay enough for the benefits they are going to get. this bill takes 10 million people like that and give some access to welfare. it takes many more millions of high school dropout in the future, brings them into the system, gives them access. i have yet to meet a single american citizen who believes that a person with the 10th
grade education pays more in taxes than they did in benefits. you have to believe that in order to believe this bill saves money. guest: you have to believe these people increase the size of the economy. but the give you an example of do not count taxes they pay. if you have a wife and she has children and must go back into the labor force. if she hires an anti for $30,000 for $30,000a nanny per year -- the taxes she pays a a result, the fact she has low skilled immigrant to care for her kids, those of the economic benefits that are not accounted for. a call from vermont. thank you for waiting. caller: i was under the assumption that immigrants would not receive benefits for 13 years.
wondering why the assumption is that people are coming here to receive free benefits. the people i have encountered in my life seemed to work harder than most americans, skilled or unskilled. they seem to want a better life. host: thank you for calling. guest: that is exactly rate. -- exactly right. it is hard for american citizens, even when stand rise for age. when you take a look at an economic growth in the united of welfarethe size benefits for people, the biggest draw for people is the economy and being in the the work force. it is not being drawn here for benefits. if they were being drawn here for benefits there would be more people coming across the border than ever before. what we see with the numbers coming here illegally is that they are the lowest numbers we have ever seen. part of the economy were a lot of these immigrants work are not
just doing a very well. they do not come here as much for welfare. that has been the result throw american history and holds today. host: robert rector? fort: immigrants come here economic opportunity but they also get a lot of welfare. the largest group that receives the most welfare group happen to be legal immigrants, portico the low-skilled legal immigrants. the lower-arly skilled illegal immigrants. that cost is going to cost over four trillion dollars altogether. every time is that you have a high school dropout in the united states, it doesn't matter if it is an immigrant, if
that individual produces twice as much productivity as they receive in wages and therefore they would have us believe that the illegal immigrants boost the standard of living of u.s. citizens by 1%, it would also follow the high school dropout that report here in the united states, raised the standard of living of other americans through their externalities', they raised your standard of living by 10%, according to that assumption. derek is on the line from minnesota. thank you for waiting. caller: thank you. this is the epitome of why our country is ridiculous at this point. we have alex talking about the benefits from illegal immigration because of the economic impact.
a -- do youd how understand how ridiculous and pathetic that is? it should be stopped. it is ruining our country. it is a big piece of what is driving our country. jobs and better positions. maybe you should fight for the fact that maybe we could take over mexico. host: let us get a response. about i am concerned illegal immigration as well. that is why i want to change the law to be more accommodating and be more consistent with american history. in this country our ancestors all come from someplace else. to say that your or my ancestors came illegally, that was a different time. the most important part of this bill is that it allows an increase for illegal immigration going forward so we will have a little bit of a less -- a little
bit less of a problem. host: a tweet -- it gives them immediately status so they will never be removed. it gives an immediate access to earn credits for social security and medicare. it gives them the largest cash welfare program and the earned income tax credit. 10 years from now will go on and the chief for the legal status that will allow them to become u.s. citizens. -- and achieve further legal status that will allow them to become u.s. citizen. is the average amnesty recipient here is going to receive about $590,000 in government benefits beyond taxes they pay. they are going to pay a $2,000 fine. get to write all of that money from the u.s.
taxpayers? the get access to it because the king and broke our laws. one of the things i noted in previous congresses i have been , aconferences i have been researcher said to me a lot of people in mexico would like a cup to the nine states but it is unlawful and they do not want to but the loss. ,e have 11 million people giving them net benefits, setting aside of the magic talk. the clear thing is they are getting about 90 trillion dollars of government benefits. why did they get all that stuff if they are not paying for it? they get it because they broke our laws. it is a massive injustice and shows absolute contempt for the taxpayer and the loss of the united states. -- and the loss of the united states. -- the laws of the united states.
guest: this piece of work does not take account the illegal immigration flows as part of this bill. i want to say, his point about how most immigrants will have a low education, that is true. does the ra fiscal train on the u.s. government. if that is true than 70% of americans who have less than a college education are also a dream. it is clear our country would be a lot poorer and were soft -- and worse off. it is a total lack of economic understanding to save for moving these people are not allowing future people to come and would make as well. host: we of keys on the line from houston. -- we have keith on the line from houston. this bill is going to be
a disaster for the american people. [indiscernible] i'm in the largest city in the united states closest to the southern border. that -- we have a participation rate at the lowest it has been, we are simply going to allow up a million people to enter our workforce? what we say to the people that want to come here illegally and [indiscernible] we need to give them some kind of program where they can work
legally. have a good day, gentlemen. host: the system is unjust. one of the clear things this bill says, and i want to emphasize this, this bill says the new norms of employment in the united states is 8.5%. our economy and has unemployment that is below 8.5%, it used to be 4%, then we will continue to incorporate low skilled immigrants in the hundreds of thousands in order to come in and compete with the unemployed americans. if you have an unemployment rate of 8.5%, that means the unemployment rate of someone who has a high-school degree, that is going to be about 12% to 13%. that is the new norm in our economy. the caller is exactly right, you
give legal status to 11 million people and you bring in all of these low skilled immigrants in the future, you are going to drive down the wages of the least skilled american workers. many of them are simply leaving to work force entirely, being pushed out by immigration. this bill will make that even worse. increases in income for everybody. in the united states right now, immigrants do not have job opportunities. if this is allowing people to come here and allowing americans to hire the people they want to hire going forward. it is remarkable that we have a supposedly free-market think- tank over your arguing that the government's job is to control the flow of production that american employers want to hire and the american economy demands simply because of some sort of central planning and nostalgic.
guest: the government's job is to determine who the citizens of united states will be guarded item that there is anyone who wants to grant citizenship and power over our government to people because they came here illegally and broke our loss. this bill grants that citizenship. it also will expand immigration in the future higher than at any point in u.s. history. probably one in five americans within a few decades will be foreign-born and when you do that, you are changing the politics and culture of the united states. it is not simply an economic matter. the economics of it are extremely bad themselves. guest: the government's job is not to plan the culture of united states. the government cannot deliver the mail on time or pave roads so they cannot plan the culture for the country. these are the same arguments we heard 100 years ago about other groups coming to the united states. it is the same silly arguments
we hear today. the notion of a government who cannot do anything else right will somehow get this right, will somehow plan the exact number of people -- the amnesty for the 3 million people in 1986, only 40% of the became citizens and were allowed to vote. this bill is much more arduous and difficult to become a citizen it is difficult to get to the voting box so assuming it will have the same impact is silly. host: democratic caller -- caller: i'm a lifelong democrat. the thing i don't understand is why would you solve the problem on the backs of unprotected workers? when you get thousands of desperate people for hundreds of jobs, you see this go down. roguee you not holding up
employers accountable? you put a $200 fine on the workers and that is not enough. on the other hand, you have all kinds of standards that i, as an employer make. as soon as they sign an affidavit, saying that they swear at witness they have working in the united states, that information could immediately be used to track down those employers, bring them to attention and they should be responsible for the thousands of dollars in fines and taxes that they owe. is it right to find employers for sending 1099'as rather than w-2's? you will give that employer direct amnesty? guest: it is foolish to punish employers for bad laws and the united states. in arizona and alabama and georgia, they have gone after employers with a vengeance. you see a decrease in economic growth and an increase in unemployment and a decrease in the number of businesses being
started. i simply disagree with the economic assertions. when the legal arizona act for its 200,000 all unlawful immigrants -- and illegal immigrants -- at the state of arizona, we saw the second- largest housing collapse of any metropolitan area in the united states. hundreds of thousands of people took their jobs with them and the spending power and their consumer spending power, their ability to buy real estate. it had a much more negative impact on the economy than what you are looking at now. that economic analysis we just heard only makes sense if there is a fixed pie of jobs and economic growth. immigrants will increase that pie for themselves and everyone else. guest: he did that answer that question because he believes any employer should be able to hire anyone he wants to including illegal immigrants. what he is not telling people is that he is an open border
ideologue who believes there should be no control on who enters the country over the border illegally and to believes there should be no laws against hiring illegal immigrants and we should essentially allow anyone in to access our country, our economy, and to ultimately become a u.s. citizen and vote. he believed all laws against hiring illegals have been wrong and they have opposed them since 1986 and he opposes all border control enforcement. he wants people to simply come here with no controls whatsoever and the caller is right that that will cost the taxpayer a fortune and it is already severely hurting less skilled workers. host: here is another tweet - it reminds us of the so-called murder -- border surge amendment. >> that is a fiction.
there is no money. amnesty in this bill, relax us to entitlements with real spending. the border stuff is what's called an authorization which, in washington parlance, is fiction. there is no money appropriated. you have to do that later. guest: he has not read the amount of money or any kind of summary of this. this border member would increase the border patrol agents by 20,000 with cameras and watch towers across the border and would cost $5 billion annually. in this bill, there is billions of dollars allocated every year to border control. guest: is fictional money. you cannot appropriate in a bill like this. host: this is of the subject of tomorrow evening's of votes. you can watch the senate to take this up.
the deal was struck late during the week. in "thethe headline baltimore sun." push the boat toward 70 votes. guest: i know the amendment is farcical the spending is not real. it is a promise to spend where in entitlement spending is real because it occurs at automatically. this money has to be voted on again separately in the future just like we promised in 2006 we were going to build 600 miles of double layer fencing and we have not done that. that was also authorized but not appropriated. the bill does not control the border at all. it does not require any great apprehension. it does not even require continuing monitoring. cornyn and an amendment that said the least we could do is within a decade, we could say
we will have continuous supervision over the border so we can watch the entire border to see whether people are coming across. as bill says no. guest: you have not read the bill. i heard you have not read any portions of the bill. it is dinh you -- it is disingenuous to talk about that because you opposed to that amendment. heritage foundation has ignored is that this bill increases the size of economic growth and will help americans and the size of gdp and you cannot ignore that. guest: i have read this bill. what the bill says is not continuous surveillance. it says persistence surveillance when you ask what that is, it is not defined. it is a completely meaningless term. i have read this bill in great detail.
it does absolutely nothing on the borders. host: let's get some other viewers, south carolina, republican, good morning. toler: good morning, i want ask if 70% of the people or republican voters? this bill ifore they work republican voters and is this because of politics? this is not affect how this affects americans' long term, they want to buy votes. you keep talking about them being neutral. 50% of the people in this country don't pay federal pac -- taxes and the ones that do make a lot of money. i don't understand how you can talk about these people being tax neutral. it is almost like the democrats have figured out a way to rate the treasury and the republicans are joining in to get votes from
these new constituents. democrats will just promise more and more. they will raid the treasury and it is by, by, miss american pie. you must be smoking some of the things these people bring across the border. nott: the cato institute is a democratic organization or left-wing group but libertarian. furthermore, i have not said one thing about the politics going that is interesting. i grew up in southern california and i saw this firsthand when the republican party committed suicide by deeming immigrants -- by condemning immigrants in 1994, blaming them for the state's problems. in 1990, pete wilson that 47% of the governors' vote. in 1998, the governors' vote for republicans was only 17% of
hispanics and a drop in a similar portion for asians. it is clear the tone of that call and other people who are concerned about immigration is what is turning people off to the republican party and the conservatives on this issue. it is not the fact that these people are genetically programmed to vote democratic. it is the fact that the republican party has been for on this. the counter example is in texas. it has an enormous hispanic population and has a lot of on lawful immigration and the republican party is enormously strong because it does not blame immigrants for every problem that goes on in the state. host: this is from "the daily beast." guest: i think the policy is that we should have enforcement first and then talk about amnesty later. this bill gets everything
exactly backwards. i also think we believe you should respect rule of law. you should not be taking people who have broken our laws and have them pay $2,000 penalty and give them $580,000 in net to government benefits over the rest of their lifetime. -- hendamental issue here is not a liberal, he is an open- border libertarian and wants no controls on the border, no controls on the hiring of illegals whatsoever. he believes it is absolutely every employer has the right to hire whomever they want to and you should have an unlimited flow of emigrants coming in to compete with u.s. workers. ultimately, they can polis -- participate in our political system and i don't think that is good for the country. guest: if he had done a modicum i talk about the role of border patrol.
to keep out criminals and terrorists and those with health concerns and other people will have negative consequences for other americans. the role of border patrol to be to funnel mark -- people into the legal market. there should be a large guest- worker visa program. that's what happened in the 1950's and illegal immigration dropped by over 50% it is suspicious that mr. rector and those of the heritage foundation are not talking at all about the portions of this bill that increase legal immigration which would make it easier to get control over the border. if we shrink the size of the black market and make it easier to get the people who we do not want to come into this country host: here is that headline from "politico. " guest: that is exactly the point. what we have said consistently is that high skilled immigration coming into the country does
have economic benefits and has fiscal impact that is positive because the average immigrant that has a college education is going to pay $30,000 per year more in taxes than they receive in benefits. on the other hand, if you bring in an immigrant legally or illegally who has a 10th grade education, they come on average, will cost the taxpayer $30,000 more each year in benefits than they pay in taxes. therefore, we have said that you should not be bringing people into the country that are going to be a net burden on the u.s. taxpayer. be bringing in people who will be a net gain abnd the cbo score is that. there is ane increase in overall productivity. they are clear that comes from high skilled scientific workers, not from bringing in people with a fifth grade education. host: rapid city, s.d., independent college. caller: good morning, i have a
statement, an opinion, and the question. this bill spells -- sells out the american people by the democrats and republicans. the democrats want a new voter base and republicans because they cannot seem to find a backbone and say this is wrong. americans find it tough now, one day legalize millions of people it will be more difficultthe cbo has been wrong in just about everything. my question is -- [indiscernible] thank you.
guest: the bill for the guest worker revision says you have to do an enormous amount to try to hire americans first grade that's the way it is right now with the guest worker visa provisions currently. oft's missing from a lot this is how the immigrants help make americans richer by working with americans in the labour market. the example i gave earlier is familyhich is that if a in the united states and the wife wants to go back to work and she has kids, now she will be able to hire a nanny better so she can go back into the legal market. the income of that man will be relatively low but they do not count the income of american workers who can go back into the work force and that multiplies across industries. there is a lot of academic evidence of this. the evidence is pretty clear.
it is not magic. it is just economics. guest: the national academy of science disagrees entirely in their study as does most tree -- most mainstream economics. the organization for economic development said that immigration has the worst fiscal impact or is in the bottom two of all developed nations bridge, because the united states has such a low educational level of the immigrants coming in. if you were to take the cato institute dynamic scoring, they imply that every time you have a high-school dropout whether they come from abroad or they are born here in the united states, they cause a positive boost in productivity. your readers will be surprised to learn that roughly 1/10 of their income is due to this mysterious productivity boost that comes from high school dropouts. it is absolute nonsense. they are using it to conceal what is their ultimate ideological base that they
believe that anyone should be able to come to the eye to states who wants to. they believe in open borders and everything else they say is distorted in order to fulfill that goal. guest: people are an asset, not a lot of -- not a liability. if you take the notion that having these people here whether they are born domestically or not are a drain on the economy, you have to conclude that 70% of americans who have less than a college degree are eight ways to to the economy. we found that is not true. we should be better off in a country but with fewer consumers and auto parts and workers, it would make us worse off. guest: the issue is not removing 70%. whether you can bring in tens of millions of additional people with the fifth grade education. that is the choice before us and whether you want to would reward people with over $600,000 in
lifetime net benefits because they broke our loss. that is was going on here. host: columbus, ohio, republican. caller: i would like to wouldalex what part of illegal does he not understand? i believe this is absolutely discrimination against any person that has tried to come into this country legally he has to go massive -- he has to undergo massive testing to become a citizen. guest: what part of legal don't rest of us understand? the legal immigration system now is one of the most convoluted, complicated and restricted portions of our immigration law. the days when a poor person could shop at ellis island and got three quick health screen or background check to see if they were criminal are long gone. that is not been the case in this country and almost a century. we now have a system that is so complicated, it is on par with the irs. there is no green card category
for low-skilled immigrants. the guest worker visa program is limited and this is a small step in the right direction to reclaim what is an american tradition, a country of immigrants and allowing people who are workers who want the american dream to work alongside americans voluntarily to make as wealthier in the process and themselves wealthier in the process. host: 10 minutes left in this segment. as thissional"quarterly" perspective --
guest: i think they are not thinking about this very much now. most of the people in the house and republican side have stated categorically that they are against and the state. senator review also said he was against amnestied. that may not play out so well in the future. when they look at the cost of this and they look at the fact that what you are doing is rewarding people for breaking below, there will have a very difficult time going forward with this. i would agree with that article that business interests lobbying for cheap labor is a major factor here. that is why this bill says that our new norm for full employment
will be 8.5% and high school- educated workers, it will be close to 15% as long as we've got 15% unemployment and things are swell and we will bring in more workers to compete with those who are unemployed . guest: i am always shocked at these big corporations are purported to bring down the economy. people are an asset and not a liability. is right that this is a difficult road and there are more skeptics in the house rather than the senate but ideologically, having more lawful immigration going for is a capitalist policy. it is one that allows americans to make the widest possible choice without government micromanaging their decisions. from cincinnati, a
democrat, good morning. looking at both of you, i look at my family here -- we are a middle-class black family. we on quite a bit of property and my great-grandmother was black and the remainder of my family was brought here against their will six generations ago. for the heritage foundation to being against immigration, the one thing i never hear or seldom hear about -- out of the heritage foundation -- what about the people from ireland that are in boston and new york?
what about the people from other parts of europe that are in having new england who came here as visitors and over-state? is it because they had better education? as far as i'm concerned, it is a pox both your houses because the 1986 bill was flawed to begin with. the problem i have with heritage foundation is when you speak of minorities, it's usually down, down, down. for myself, i have been here -- my family has been here longer than you so what gives you or anyone in the heritage foundation the right to say a particular group is going to be a downer? i will wait for your answer. guest: i don't say that a particular group or ethnic group is going to be a downer. i say that individuals who come here with low skill levels are going to end up receiving more from the taxpayers than they pay
and benefits. it is an interesting point about the italians and the irish at the turn of the century when we had our highest level of emigration coming in called the great migration. back then, there was no welfare state. there was not even a federal income tax. the situation is radically different today. if you were -- if you allow some to walk into the country and become a legal resident, you essentially give them access to over 80 different programs of aiding the poor, access to public education that costs $12,000 per student per year which merlot -- most low-income people do not pay for. it get subsidized and have no problem with that but i know you cannot do that from an unlimited inflow of lower skilled people from abroad to get access to social security and medicare. all of those things did not exist in the early 1900's in the
previous immigration flow. that's why is a different society today. just allowing anyone to come here who wants to come here or who can sensibly find a job, you cannot do that without imposing huge costs. who out there in the audience believes a person with a tent reeducation pays more in taxes than they get in benefits? that list what you have to believe in order to support what is being advocated. it is simply not true. guest: if you believe having fewer people who here who are fewer workers and consumers, if you believe people are a liability rather than an asset, that makes sense. i think it is unfair to blame the heritage foundation's opinion on this. i think they are committed to this but not because of a notion of racism. i think they honestly believe this. i think they are wrong but not
for any kind of racist reasons. the same arguments we hear today are the same arguments we heard 100 years ago. if you look at the early 20th century, people said this will cost american taxpayers money and these emigrants take money from local charities as well as local governments which had welfare states at that time the new york police department that time was 100% iris and it was seen as a program to help irish- americans come in and be hired overwhelmingly in the police department. it is the same argument, it is just the 21st century and we are having them now. host: here is a day tweet- guest: granting legal status allows people to be more mobile and i don't have to live in the shadows illegally as a result of not being able to fear deportation. they invest more in themselves
in terms of human capital so they go and get some skills and invest more in learning english and invest in a permanent life in the united states. after the 1986 legalization, the average increase in wages for the immigrants who work here because of the legalization is they become more productive and their wages increased by 12-25% based on the most modest studies out there. being able to merely invest in education in yourself without the fear of being deported and the fear of having property taken is a boost to gain productivity and wages. guest: i don't want to play dueling studies which is the most boring form of television. was far lessgain than that. let's say that once you legalize the wages of these individuals, and they got 25% -- my calculation and no one has
disputed these calculations, i show that once you give access to social security and medicare and obama care, obama care alone costs about $30,000 per year and it is outside thescbo budget window. they will get about $4 of government benefits for every dollar of taxes they pay. it is the same thing that legal immigrants curly debt. let's say it is not for dollars. let's see their wages and taxes go up by 25%. 4-1.5. of 4-1, it is it is a fiscal disaster and what the republicans don't want their base to understand how much this costs which is why we have all this magic math about every time you bring in a high-school dropout, they produce many times their own wages in productivity. it is simply fiction. the heritage foundation
ignores the gdp and economic and others have realized this is crucial to americans. the difference between the cbo and heritage score is a trellis of dollars and it would be nice if the heritage foundation would be behind this. host: we're out of time. an hour was not quite enough. we say thank you to both of our guests. thanks to both of you for your time this morning. we will get more of a preview of the week ahead from -- from congress. later in the program, a look at iran who have elected a new president and we will find out a little bit more about the new leader there. and what impact you will have
on relationships with the west. be right back. ♪ ♪ ♪ >> first ladies have a capacity for -- to personify if they so choose and this is a pattern and american women in politics famous or not. one thing is that they are real people to actually do things. then there is this secondary capacity of being a personifying figure, a charismatic. many first ladies have come to become a first lady and realized that this thing was larger than life. that was something dolly figured
as social becomes a figurehead for her husband's administration makes the white house into a symbol and she fostered the attachment to the capital city. all this is happening in 18 08 richard does not know this but in 1814, the british will burn the capital city and all this work she put in to helping the public identified with the white house is going to pay off. it will give this surge of nationalism around the war. >> focus on first ladies continued its every monday night and an expert run features historians and offers on why we study first ladies, monday night at 9:00 eastern on c-span. >> even though gettysburg was the midpoint of the war and more people died after than before, why does it still looms so large in national memory? consider the statistics -- three days of fighting, july 1-3, 1863
wounded,illed, 33,000 some of whom later died, and 11,000 missing. staggering total of 50,000 casualties in 13-day period. >> the 150th anniversary of the battle of gettysburg live all the coverage from gettysburg starting at 9:30 eastern. host: we have been managing editor of "the hill." move the conversation for on immigration. we have the key senate votes tomorrow and how is the number is shaping up? guest: this will be a climactic week for legislation in the senate because it looks like it will pass and it will get close to 70 boats because of this corker hoben amendment and that
procedural vote will happen tomorrow afternoon and that will pass. then it is a matter of senators being on the fence making up their minds of whether they will support this. no doubt about it, this bill will pass and this will be the first time a comprehensive immigration reform has passed since 2006 and the senate. it bought down that year and they tried again in 2007. this is a big accomplishment but they have a long way to go before this is law. host: 1 senator does not like this, senator patrick leahy. he says it reads like a christmas wish list for halliburton. guest: he is saying it could be a problem for waste and abuse in the government because that is so much money going for the border security. in all likelihood, senator leahy will vote for the bill. that is where democrats knew they could move the bill a little to the right. democratic leaders who want to get 70 votes and they can count on people like senator leahy who will be upset but unlikely that
will still backed the bill. you talk about the house action and congressman gutierrez express optimism that they have 218 votes but take a deeper look behind the numbers. 218 is a passable number in the house that what is the reality? guest: the reality is that they don't like the senate bill whatsoever. bay -- there are not two or 18 votes. john boehner will not be bringing the senate bill to the house floor. we have a lot of conservatives who are more worried about a primary challenge than a general election. so of these guys have already started to get primary challenges of the house will move very different legislation, natural, non- controversial legislation and that will probably get into conference. that is where the rubber hits of the road.
is the sticking point pathway to citizenship. the house does not agree with that. most house republicans -- speaker john bennett has told us conference he does not like the senate bill. toldeaker john boehner has us it conference -- his conference does not like the senate bill. host: what do they want in terms of illegals? guest: they will different programs like e-verify. that has bipartisan support bridger support and the guest worker program has bipartisan support for the senate has not yet been critical of the house. i think that will happen and you will see democratic senators after this passes the senate calling on the house for a vote on this. that is not going to happen anytime soon and it may never happen. host: as managing editor of "the the," we are looking at weekend -- and headed in
congress. one week of action before the july 4 break. for a bit ofepare surprise when it rejected the farm bill last week. what happens there and explain what some stories are tying into the immigration bill? be a: if there is going to big immigration bill that passes congress, specifically the house, it will have to be bipartisan. it will have to have democrats and republicans. on the farm bill, same thing. if that is going to pass the house, it needed republicans and democrats and conservatives but they rejected the bill. one group can get out against the balance of to prices are you will need this bipartisan coalition and that was a stunning vote. we knew it was going to be close. republicans say they have about 180 votes lined up and they're counting on 40 democrats. because of a series of amendments, democrats started to fall off the bill.
therefore, it ended up not close. some of the republicans that committed to it, once they saw was going to fail, they did not vote yes. they did not even get 180 and the bill failed by a margin of 40 votes so it could come back this week but i think that is doubtful because the majority whip suggested they move it further to the right to get more republican votes with this kind of big bill and the house republican congress, you have to count on 50-60 no-votes on any big bill. host: each side blamed the other. guest: nancy pelosi called amateur are saying republicans are running a house and is up to them to pass the bill. it was an embarrassment to house republican leaders but they think they can pass some type of bill. we will see. host: there is one more thing -- student loans. explain the issue at hand. guest: this has got to beat --
federally backed student loans, the interest rate will rise from 3.4%-6.8% in july 1 unless congress does something. they extended the rate last year but this year it has been different president obama has embraced a more market-based approach. democrats on the hill want to extend the rates at 3.4% for two years. however, house republicans have passed a bill that is market- based but not exactly like the president's plant as far -- as far as tying it to the treasury notes. president obama has threatened to veto the house legislation. john boehner is calling on the senate to pass the bill and they have not republicans are going on offense this year. last year, there were very much
on defense. this will be a big issue this week. host: the first call is from tennessee, independent -- caller: i have a quick question -- back in 2007, when senator told gerald ford's and it came out about illegal immigration. it came up that senator corker and some of his construction business -- he is a millionaire -- it was because of illegal labor. i find that offensive that he should remove himself from voting since he used illegal labor to profit. i don't think we will get very fair answers from you. guest: we have not taken a position on the immigration reform bill. inator corker was running 2006 but i'm not sure what he said during the campaign race
but it is worth looking at to see what he said then and now. on various issues, she has almost -- he has almost forge deals with democrats and auto belts and other deals and he is a centrist on this and has struck a deal here that is attracting criticism at the same time, democrats are praising him for negotiating and being a compromiser. host: new york city, democrats -- a good morning. caller: of like to make a comment and question. why is it that the congress and the senate trade all of these situations going on as if it is a sporting events? one side has to constantly try to beat the other side. why cannot they just work toward a common goal to win for the better of all the people? they keep blaming the president but he is working with all the people trying to get things
done it seems like it is a one- sided even where one side has to win and one side had still to lose. to lose. work for the common good of all people, immigrants, citizens, children, school people, the teachers -- everyone is fighting and the senate is very difficult right now. things are tough but working together would have a more positive outcome. they are fighting one against the other a constant basis. guest: that is true. the way party politics is ended has been this way for a while that you can argue it is more so now to rise in your party, you have to take on the other party and be a partisan person for it unless there is an incentive for your party to pass legislation that may be president obama wants or not, you will not embrace it. republicans say to pass immigration reform, looking at the last election for president obama easily defeated met ronnie
among hispanics but not all republicans agree. .- mitt romney host: there are a number of stores that said that speaker john boehner and his leadership is on the line. john boehner's job is on the line in two respects free if he loses the house and the conservatives have a coup attempts . they had a bad coup attempt and did not succeed earlier this year. the chances of the house flipping are unlikely partly because of gerrymandering but i think he is more conserve -- concerned about the conservative side of losing it to democrats. handicappers say there are more
democratic seats in jeopardy than republican seats. john boehner has the toughest job in washington. host: our guest will be with us for another 30 minutes. as we were getting ready for the show's morning, we started seeing stories out of hong kong about the nsa leaving hong kong for russia. 3 any reaction? guest: this is a fascinating story in so many respects. you have surveillance and diplomatic relationships between what could be many different countries. one thing that baffles me about the story is that the u.s. could have revoked his passport i don't know exactly how he is traveling around the world.
this man is a world of deception. this,hing you read on there has to be something else. where is he really? i think it is a fascinating story and it will not end until he is captured. host:the ap says -- let's get another call from new york city, independent college. -- caller. caller: good morning, cspan. about thetalk movement toward fascism in this country. i think this is a very, very important subject that basically
goes unspoken. that, the tvut came on again. iss story about snowden important. i agree with so much about what liberals and conservatives think about it given the way the government has been going after us with the irs and so on and so forth. however, snowden, cannot have an individual but works for an intelligence organization making up their minds what we should reveal and what should not be revealed. this is ridiculous. am i on cspan? i'm sorry. i will make this quick -- the fascism in this country is coming from the left. it has been coming from the left for 70 years now. the left wing of this country
has effectively taken over the colleges, most of the colleges intorainwash our students political correctness. it is intellectual fascism the comes from the left. hate crimes and hate speech, if you think about it, if you have hate speech, you have no speech. who is going to tell you what is hate speech and what is not? the irs is the most fascistic thing that has happened so far. this is using the government to go after private citizens because we disagree with their policies or opposition to us. it is very dangerous was going on here. their should study history and take a look at this. liberties andour we are losing them through the left wing.
it is basically true political correctness. if you are against homosexual marriage, you are a homophobe. if you are against abortion, you are a misogynist. both liberals and conservatives are concerned about the nsa and what we are finding out. it is fascinating that you see on capitol hill have legislation or liberals and conservatives like sheila jackson lee louis gomer or endorsing the same legislation for the government to be more transparent. those bills are probably not going to go anywhere because they are not supported by democratic and republican leaders but you have odd coalition is going on host: let's hear from a democrat in boulder, colorado. caller: thanks for having me on. i want to get back to the student loan question.
i want to get an opinion on it and i would like to make a statement as we know, a tuition is going up 10-15% per year and tuition is out of sight. i would like people to think about what they are getting. if you look at education, a few years ago, people said we need to teach education like a business. now we have it. i don't know if it is working. we have 50% bureaucrats. the other 50% are educators. half of those are as a to faculty. -- are absent faculty. that have no office. is this what we are paying for?
make fiveoaches times what the leading professor at a college does. this is a joke. and how itbusiness will operate education, i guess you're down to the bottom rung. host: thank you for your thoughts. i want to show you want minutes worth of tape from tapecou rtney . anybody in this business understands the power of this issue. there was a poll just released a couple of days ago or 84% of the public is opposed to letting the rates double.
from rates far above consumer rates for other products like home mortgages and car loans. the fact that mr. klein and speaker boehner move for with a bill and male -- in may shows that this initiative need to handle with care. the cuts across every state, blue or red, middle-class families and upper-middle-class families are struggling with college costs. even though it does that have the exact same dynamic of one year ago in the midst of a presidential campaign, the political power of this issue is still very dangerous for either side to be on the wrong side. that is why i think there will be a lot of the external force that will be brought to bear over the next 10 days to avoid either party being to blame for allowing this to happen. guest: this will be a big issue. i think there's more hope for a
deal on this than one year ago. just a numbers game between president obama and house republicans. republicans say they are negotiating with the white house but i think they've got other things on their plate. that emigration and the debt deal and i think they are going to get some type of deal even though they just have to negotiate on the numbers. in many ways, there are similarities between the house republican approach and president obama which is -- has not sat well with some democrats on capitol hill. the student loan issue, we are talking about it but what you don't see talked about on capitol hill is the rising cost of tuition. you don't see a lot of action you look at different colleges over the years. tuitions have doubled from a decade ago and possibly triples from two decades ago. host: conn caller,
independent, good morning. on the i am calling immigration situation. i have a quick thing to say. and whiningpla about the people hiding in the we are already 25% hispanic. we need more europeans and asians and south africans or whatever. they are messing with the diversity of the united states just for the votes. thank you for your time. guest: politically, that is why republicans are now raising immigration reform. talk about self-
deportation during the election. now, the party, the leaders of the party are taking a very different approach that is why they see the hispanic population is getting bigger and bigger in this country. some republicans say that if you ask for immigration reform, most of them will vote for democrats and that will help the democratic party. this issue has always divided the republican party and to a lesser degree, the democratic party. ♪ host: you touched on the debt ceiling. here is a tweet - what's going to happen here? guest: i think we are. the first will be whether there is a government shutdown. you sides are so different look at the different proposed budgets, they have not gone to a conference. there are night and day and that is what spells out the parameters of the appropriations
bill. at the end of the fiscal year, there needs to be some kind of temporary bill or the government will shut down. as far as the debt limit, i think that is later. all of this, if they ever get an agreement, all of this could be lumped into one. i think it is first the government shut down situation and another debt limit showdown. i have been in washington since 1995 and washington has been at its ugliest in 2011. democratic caller, from missouri. caller: i have a couple of questions about mitch mcconnell. to boot camp in 1961.
you bear a striking resemblance to another bob cusack and i wondered if there was any connection about. mitch mcconnell, i understand he is up for re-election a gun in 2016 and i'm wondering if this any candidate on the left that has even the slightest chance of giving him a run for his money? guest: my father served in the army, not the navy. it is probably not related. regarding mitch mcconnell, he is up for reelection in 2014. dd thinking about running and surprised many of us and said it was not going to run. there is not a confirmed democratic candidate yet. democrats say they will get one. they are still working on it. mitch mcconnell is clearly the favorite. he has a huge campaign war chest.
democrats want him to spend that money on his race, not on other races he could help his colleagues. but to mcconnell would like to be majority leader next year. republicans will have to win six seats and that's a tall order. host: the president nominated presidentcomey this past week and what you make of that reaction? respect on comey both of the aisle and served in the bush administration and was a credit of some of the activities of what the bush administration was doing. democrats respect him. at the same time, there is going to be a rocky nomination process because of the position. it is a 10-year position. with the cia nomination, rand paul a big filibuster. maybe you will see another rand paul filibuster on this democrats want to move this as
quickly as possible. i'm not sure if they would set the nomination hearings but i think there'll be a protracted nomination but not because of him. it will take a long time because they will hold his nomination up and request information on stuff like the pitcher did act. -- like the patriot act. i think the nomination could take months host: where are we on the patriot act? guest: is legislation on it but i don't see any changes happening. president obama has not call for any changes. he has defended the severance programs. you have members on both the left and right seeking changes. this patriot act which has been re-authorized on capitol hill has withstood the test of time. i don't see many changes. if there are changes, i think it would be weak. texas,ary, stafford,
republican line, go ahead caller: good morning, this is on immigration. nothing is never going to be passed between republicans and democrats to my opinion, the reason is they get theyid's, security, a driver's license, they get jobs, they pay into social security and pay the irs - wow, look at the money coming in. do they want to get them out of the country? i have nothing against them being here as long as they come here the white whale. -- the right way. if we break the law, we are the chances of immigration reform happening are now.d 50-50 right
there's been a lot of optimism at the beginning of the year but differences between the house and senate mean it could be bogged down. implementation i think the caller is referencing some of -- rules are put forward will be interesting. jump nyone be able to ahead of others in line? the president has said that but in the practice of implementing this big law snafus.uld be some i think it has to pass this year because once we get in the election year it will be more difficult. the president will make a speech at georgetown this week, tuesday. the hill writes about it, to lay out national plan on climate change. what is that about? -- t: this is the president remember in 2009 the house then pelosi passed a
climate change bill. it never got a vote in the senate. therefore, now president obama change to tdo climate administratively through the government agencies. this could get congressional challenges. it is sure to get legal challenges. been promising to do this and now he is going to do it. details yet. the he is going to be very active on this issue. to : he is headed back africa this week. what is the significance of the trip? is he going? go is the bigt to issue. he has said a lot of the cost is security. you go to africa you have to have a huge contingency there. there before. this is the white house saying another historic trip. republicans have seized on the cost and as they do. says is legislation that
that the president should not go the white until house doors are opened up. is politics in everything. host: we have a caller on the from ogden, utah, democrat. something seems to keep coming up in the fact that the controlled s to be by debt. we have our students coming out owing thousands of dollars they can't just take off nd do what they want to do, they better find some contained job.nd of our citizens mostly seem to have debt paying us back. can'tave learned and they move and can't do anything. if they own a house and still they are busy paying on that house and maybe -- we have ke sure
our national debt. to be ing seems controlled by debt. no one is free to do anything they want to. what they have to in order to pay for the debt. guest: that is. that is definitely the thing has attacked the debt, whether on student loans nd you look at the entitlement programs and medicare and social security both headed for bankruptcy. earlier than social security. but it is still decades out. doesn't act usually to pass legislation that saves hese programs until it is up against that solvency date. we saw that in the balanced 1987.t act of medicare was going bankrupt within the tphebnext decade and acted.s host: the senate has immigration tomorrow. how about the number of energy items on the schedule and this of this eminds me
tweet. guest: it is not going to pass and force the president's hand. house has passed keystone legislation. there are some democrats in the want to pass it. but the president has been able o block the bills from getting to his desk. at the same time his administration is reviewing k keystone keystone, and most think it eventually is going to be approved by the administration. republicans are saying what is the wait? president is having this big speech on climate change this but at the mentioned same time the unions are pushing a keystone because that's lot of jobs. if i had to bet i think he will of keystone type but have a very elaborate plan on climate change. argument against keystone. tennessee, a rom
republican. good morning. caller: good morning. that ia couple of issues want to bring up. first i want to say i'm a republican, yes. first of all i'm an american and i think that is what a lot of.people lose their sense first of all we are americans. now, i have two issues. congress.th the when we put somebody in congress, vote them in, we us and hem to represent they take an oath to uphold the constitution. see them bypass the constitution. an illustration you gave is the with this climate change thing. he can't control the climate. really irritates me that the paoeeople who are put in ofe do not represent the people who put them in there. they get in there and do what to.y want the other thing that i have an ssue with is i worked in the media, i was a newspaper editor
of twoness and publisher newspapers in arizona. 40 or 50 years ago the to keep the ob was people informed of what the government is doing. any more. do that they take handouts. they are sh them like fact. they don't bother to check the facts. the are not informing people. they are supposed to be the link to keep the people protected overbearing government. guest: the first point about congress and their representation, members of elected once they get the chances of them being re-elected are quite high. 90% of incumbent every two years get re-elected. that is something that -- that's why some call for term limits. that's not going anywhere.
neither party is pushing for term limits. media, the media has changed dramatically the years, but at 0 the same time i think that the media does a pretty good job of what the government is doing and it has been through the media we have been able to out about these surveillance programs. host: if there is not enough at the white house and hill the supreme court is busy. it is the final week of the court.y uest: there is a number of issues and one i believe is the gay marriage issue. to get ossibly going last week -- it has been in the the lastong especially year, president obama's it is on, i think fascinating where the supreme court. we have seen the republican some senators have changed their positions. marchrepublican senators, latest- murkowski is the
to come out for it. i don't know if it will be along party lines but this will be one of the biggest decisions the court has done since the obama care. affirmative see action and voting rights and gay marriage results. decision dates this week at the court. we will continue to track those tories as the rulings are released. boro, is from owens kentucky. a democrat. hi, there. caller: i have a comment and a question. i would like to challenge all the viewers out there to look up a couple of documents. the communist manifesto the protocols s szion.elders of -by-step e step
directions of how to take over a country. they o step by step and are doing it real subtly. main ways to take over a ountry is by violence and by debt. i would like to ask you rb, whas the total amount of derivatives ?hat are out there and i think that will be the downfall of america is the derivatives market. i will take your answer off the air. guest: i don't know the number derivatives. but there is definitely -- here's been a lot of frustration on wall street's nfluence on congress, many on the left as well on the right saying no one has been for the 2008 implosion of the market. but as far as taking over the country, i'm not sure what do mean. host: there will be a special
senate election in massachusetts on tuesday. gabriel gomez against ed markey. house democrat. democrats have been working very ard to avoid a repeat of 2010 scott brown victory which almost reform. healthcare markey is the favorite. not huge but we have seen in the he's got a semi-comfortable lead. shocker, i be a think, if gomez won. you go that is why special are hard to predict and we will see what happens. host: you may have seen the c-span ate here on the network. we will look to get speeches by that nner and loser in race in massachusetts. linda from connecticut, democrat. caller: good morning. how are you today? host: fine. wonderful. i think a lot of this congressional disagreement eally is a bunch of children
playing in a playground. e as americans have to step up to the plate in the 2014 elections and change some of people that may represent us. a very change is important issue. orking with all environmental settings right now because of offset from all of these tornadoes, all of these those weatherl of changes that hashave affected b amount of cold weather and snow we are getting all over the country. really ces that never had those problems. yes, we have to be able to heat cool those areas. but that is where environmental technological changes come and new ideas and new companies get developed to help resolve some of these issues. hasink that president obama
to step out with the agencies in overnment right now who have identified specific projects that have to be done both in the in more as and to help n and planting to prevent some of these challenges. and to have long-term goals and from job lping both creation perspective, medical perspecti from just being able to make sure that people healthcare if things happen. thank you very much. guest: on energy climate change the parties couldn't be more far apart. she mentioned climate change as well as job creation. if you pursue climate change you hinder job creation and the economy is the issue.one democrats say you do climate change you increase job production.
that issue alone has prevented president obama from getting legislation of any kind because they just can't agree on that. that is the so-called elephant the room. one at the end of the day viewer on twitter wants to ask or suggest maybe in another year congress will get to the issue of good paying jobs for americans. guest: yes rb, congress goes fr and both surveillance parties accuse the other of not on jobs. both parties, i think, would be for to stay on that issue the long term because if they did, that is going to be the we are talking about issues this morning but i uarantee you when we get to 2016 the presidential election the economy will probably be in the top three if not number one. host: jeff is calling from milwaukee, independent. caller: good morning.
with the amount of debt america is in it seems like every we continue to support foreign aid? thank you. question e is that again. guest: foreign aid. it comes up a lot. if you talk to a lot of rand paul s, senator making the case of cutting back budget aid, the overall is very tiny for foreign aid. that doesn't mean it is not money, but at the same time mccain says you have to work with other also have to you promote democracy. that is why foreign aid is essential. so, this issue has come up more over the last couple of years in the prioreen it decade. in : last call, from sam pennsylvania. republican. caller: good morning. today talks how , the college
education costs. back in the ok at history of higher education when rates an costs skyrocketed s when the federal government started to back the loans and the universities and colleges and his wealth of money just went after it. if you will notice, everything government gets into goes out of control. think we need a smaller government and more things back to the people and let them businesses and colleges and education. it is just too much money, too debt. we are going to fail. i love c-span and keep up the good work. guest: as far as the federally acked loans the government makes money on the student loans but there's been a debate how much government should be whether energy loans and significantly housing loans have been a huge issue.
republicans and democrats want to reform that issue but have struggled to do so. cusack is managing ditor of "the hill" and thank you for the preview. in a moment we will turn our iran.ion to our guest will be karim adjadpour of the carnegie endowment for international peace. see what he brings to debate in that part of the world. some more news from c-span radio. today on the re-air ta -- sunday talk shows we will have a number of discussions. at noon "meet the press" will be republican homa senator tom coburn and dick durbin. congresswoman loretta mike rogers.
1:00 p.m. "this week" is with general keith alexander director of the national security agency. joaquin castro and mike kelly. it is "fox news unday" with lindsey graham and mike lee and gabriel gomez the the open senate seat in massachusetts. r rand palm and cluck schumer. 4:00 p.m. ""face the nation"" we dianne h senator feinstein and republican senators bob corker of tennessee alabama.sessions of the sunday network tv talk shows are brought to you as a public by the networks and c-span and c-span radio rebroadcasts the shows beginning at noon with "meet the press," r week, thens beck
fox news sunday and state of the "face the nation" from cbs. you can listen to them all on 90.1 f.m. in on washington. nationwide on xm satellite 119.el download the app for the smart c-span learn online at radio.org. > let us not be blind to our differences but let us also attention to our common interests and the means by which hose differences can be resolv resolved. and if we can not end now our differences, at least we can the world safe for diversity. at thefree men, wherever may live, are citizen of berlin. and, therefore, as a free man i pride in the words [speaking a foreign language]. we see a much different
president kennedy than the first year. then 1963 you see a different one who at the same time is the ground for a shot test ente and his nuclear ban treaty, which was agreed to 1963, while at he same time also building up defenses and seeking a way toward peace with this american university speech. >> looking back on the 50th and -- anniversary of kennedy's speeches. history tv american on c-span 3. >> "washington journal" continues. iran. we look at our guest is karim sadjadpour. middle ssociate in the east program at carnegie endowment for international peace. mr. sadjadpour iran has elected
a new president. ho is he and how did he become elected? guest: it is great to be here. elected and they are not same as western democracies in that only a very limited pool allowed to s are run. the ballot and he was essentially the only moderate choice that voters had. he is interesting in that he is regime consummate insider. he's been part of iran's national security establishment last two decades. but i think an important caveat opposed to the other candidates on the ballot who ere really kind of ideologically fire brands, he is ommitted to the system and
islam islamic republic but a more pragmatic voice who often favors putting economic speed kwrepbs ideology.volutionary host: in the framework of what iranian lking about, politics and its viewpoint on the world, the government, what words mean? guest: everything is relative. iran, even if of we were having this a decade ago,say, rohani would be considered more of a conservative figure. but, because of iran's rightward the last decade rohani is mored, moderaterate but not a the way we see as moderate here. committed to the values of he islamic revolution and if were sitting here now and you
asked him about alcohol or about marriage and all of these issues, he would be a very conservative. but again in the context of -- not player contemporary politics he is a moderate. our guest will be with us 35 more minutes to talk about iran and the new president. we will put the phone numbers on he bottom of the is he similar or different from ahmadinejad. guest: he was an being a light f the father of the 1979
revolution and been a consummate insider the last few decades so who believes in the system and wants to preserve the system. different than ahmadinejad is he's someone who has studied abroad. has advanced degrees from scotland. in being nterested ind of the champion of the anti-imperialist movement. making military comments toward israel and the united states i expect he is more pragmatic tone. one thing that is important to point that this very limited pool of candidates. only allowed to vote for a limited pool of candidates. and i would say that the votes hassan rohani was less of a himself the candidate and more of a vote against the status quo. think the last eight years
iranians have been suffocating tremendous internal economic mismanagement, economic prosecution and tremendously external economic ressure in the form of very drak sanctions. host: before we get to calls what has the reaction in the to there election? and what is the new leader said issues e west or relative to the west? guest: if i were to describe it two words the reaction from the west is cautious optimism. after eight years of ahmadinejad, who denied the holocaust and called for it el's demise which made different for western governments particularly the this is nowge iran, seen in washington and probably europe as a new opportunity to try to build confidence with iran now.
i think that there is a very broad recognition that the real continues to lie with the unelected establishment, namely the leader ayatollah khomeini. when you look at the world from office you see iran is se several major u.s. national concerns. afghanistan, iraq, conflict.palestinian terrorism, energy security and nuclear proliferation. a desire with the barack obama, whether president obama himself, secretary of secretary defense o try to build confidence with tehran and the election of perhaps the was best outcome of a deeply flawed process. host: the first call is from florida. dan.
democrat. hi. aller: thanks for taking my call. i want to ask mainly do you with the election of his new president that the american opinion of iran in general will change to maybe a positive, more, you know, friendly tone, and you think is good for iran. that is my first question. the cond question is, does [inaudible]? host: let's done that call. guest: there were two questions. whether this is good for -- i nd the second was forgot the second part of the question. the reality is that the arguably in iran is more important for iranians than in s for the outside world
that a new president in tehran, like a new president in washington, brings in a whole new staff of people, managers to staff the s various bureaucracies. the era of mahmoud ahmadinejad he essentially from the more em professional technocratic folks brought in more ideological who felt loyalty toward him and his values. i think under rohani there is a hope that the management of the its political and economic management is going to improve. remember now the second question which was whether this image in theiran's united states. think that the answer to that question remains to be seen. but when you look at opinion conducted among americans,
favorable least nation in the entire united states. ranks even lower then north korea in terms of the way it.icans think about and that has a lot to do with history, back to the 1979 hostage crisis and the ayatollah khomeini and the fact that on a weekly basis the iranian establishment gets together for the friday prayer ession and chants "death to america." so it will take a lot to undo negative imagend that americans feel for iran. rohani's election is very, very slight move in the right direction. host: the phone lines for our listed on the screen.
our guest will be with us about 30 more minutes or so it talk about the new leader in iran. to the political question, twitter one r, via questi questioner asks about the iranian president much does he have the political skills to more power to guide his country the longer he serves? guest: the vision of presidency fully is neither authoritative nor is it merely ceremonial. so the president does have important responsibilities in elping to manage the country's domestic economy. and the iranian president is iran the public face of to the international community. that is because of the fact the leader hasn't left iran since 1989. -- when the iranian iran conducts international
sends someone to the united nations for the eneral assembly it is the president that attends, not the supreme leader. o the president does have important responsibilities. but if you look at the main levers of power in iran, which the military, media, the these are all bodies which remain under the control of the supreme leader. so, i think that we have to have realistic expectations about and iran president can really change. that said, over the last three president who has come to office over time has tarted to clash with the supreme leader trying to appropriate more power. nd it remains to be seen how hassan rohani will go about that. we've a democrat on the ine, thad, from lawrenceville, illinois. caller: thank you. karim sadjadpour, you are a
and you have answered most of my questions. i have one question for you. edward snowden traitor or hero? very tough question to answer. television. i would argue not a hero. whether the is information he has revealed to ranks him as a traitor. reserve judgment in that i think many of the facts of this case are yet to be out. but i would say this. nd this maybe not a direct answer to the question, but when -- when you are kind of more g on some of these sensitive foreign policy issues regard to the th middle east or working on the
ssue of international relations, i think that many people who work in this field long assumed that their communications have been in some shape or form been monitor ed. certainly not an endorsement of those types of ctivities, but i would say for many people i can only speak for huge here -- it wasn't a shock that this had been taking place. a call are from utah, independent caller. thanks for taking my call. heard on cnn that they ecommended, one of them, i guess, recommended that we stop on iran to reduce weapons. i think it might help. the pressure hurts.
offset north uld korea with south korea with japan becoming nuclear and dropping it. got it.e another thing is what are some do to ways that we could the fully get iran to end afghanistan war and syria and solve the problems and get a solution. host: thanks. guest: the caller brings up an potential point by cooperation between the united states and iran. the policy debate on iran is very nicely bookended quotes from the former secretary of state henry kissinger. he once said there are few nations in the world with whom he united states has more common interests and less reason to quarrel than iran. that iran has to decide whether it is a nation or
a colony. but if you look at the major in ign policy challenges which -- major u.s. foreign policy challenges in which iran influence, the caller mentioned averages and afghanistan ioned and syria. with afghanistan there are verlapping interests between the united states and iran. both are enemies of the taliban of sunni ses radicalism. see ath countries want to stable afghanistan that is not a narcostate. there is no interest to see come unraffled because they would have -- unrafrled because they would day the refuse jew -- accommodate the refuse gentlemens. -- refuse few gees. there is no overlapping interest
governments of the united states and the nation of iran but the government, the islamic republic of iran. there continues in syria is egime mportant because it has been iran's only consistent ally since 1979. provides iran a ritical geographic link to the -- hezbollah. so it is critical that assad and they have been spending billions of dollars to keep him afloat. iran he united states and clash. that the issue which is the single biggest impediment to an improvement in u.s.-iran issues is actually the issue of israel. because for the united states
american ly for the public israel's national sacrosanct. that is the word president obama and many other presidents before sack rrosansacrosanct to describe israeli national security. the other side is iran sees srael as and i will legitimate state, it rejects its resistance nd continues to support hezbollah and islamic jihad. impedimentt the real in the u.s.-iran relations is but the uclear issue two countries' positions toward israel. changing under rohani's presidency. host: we go back inside iran for a couple of minutes. would you describe life there these days, conditions there, starting with the economy? guest: the economy is the issue , the vast rns most majority of people in iran, i
would argue. which should be doing well, i would argue, advertise y because got tremendously -- it's got rich human resources. a vibrant well educated tremendous civil legislati ization. it has 2,500 years of history in civilization. it ddition to human capital has tremendous natural resources n the form of oil and natural g gas. so, it is a country which i would argue should be doing a ot better than it is economically. it has the potential to be part arc.e g-20, i would one statistic that stands out or many iranians is that in 1977-1978 on the eve of the -- ic refuse laws
about double was that of turkey and now it is half that of turkey. what a ows you difference mismanagement of a country makes. -- if you you were to were to interview about the challenges, i would argue nine if all 10 iranians economic concerns whether lack of employment prospects. unemployment and underemployment amongst the youth is over 30%. inflation, if you look at its measures, is well over 30%. these are the issues which i care about.oters it is not to say they are not concerned with issues like human democracy, but i think for the vast majority of oters the thing that worries them most are their economic prospects. host: there's a tweet here about sea of tranquillity wants to
another here is uprevisi will theg -- up rising new president support it guest: i think the new president would do his best to crush it. this new president was, as i entioned, part of the national security establishment who uprisings was part tried to quell them. hat was in 1999 with a student uprising. as recently as 2009 in the the chemicaontested re-election of ahmadinejad we saw the rise of the green rohani never voiced support for the protests. is he is someone who committed to the preservation of the islamic regime. about the say this
uprising for a popular in iran. experienced a s revolution without democracy and i would argue today they aspire without a cy revolution. what that means is that you look middle east, he especially in a place like yria, people are paying enormous costs for political chan change. allowing 100,000 casualties in syria, more than a quarter of displaced.ion i think that iranians have no types e to pursue those of means. a population which is allergic type of blood shed and popular tumult. in iran, at people given the fact that it is such a three-quarterson, of whom were essentially born after the revelation, they do for fundamental change,
willing to see them risk revolutionary means to go get nto the streets and killed or kill en masse. rad.: a caller from london, go ahead, please. caller: hi. everyone there. i have a question and a couple points. my question is, would you be on the points te from the ehavior united states toward iran. it is said that iran has been irritating the united states. literally e saying the united states has been of iran.e] government not.ld argue it is ut anyone that would take the
steps to remove would have counter measures. point i wanted to make in terms of policy with israel would you not agree there other players that supporting terrorist roups and extremists [inaudible] oppose existence been more of a rhetoric rather than anything .ther than that the movement in lebanon was consequence of war somehow the iranians have creat created. of ink you have blown sort iran's proceportion
behavior and [inaudible]. calling.nk you for guest: those are two important questions the caller raises. in reverse order and talk about the second question, hich the other countries or groups around the world which re supporting terrorism which may be more nefarious than the which f radical groups iran supports. i think that is a very useful back to the conversation about syria. because we have a situation in iran is supporting the assad regime to remain in power. supporting hezbollah, interest in eal keeping the assad regime in place. you have more radical groups like one that is an adjust shoot and some radical
sunni fundamentalist which are ns supported by some of the persian countries, whether qatar or saudi arabia. unclear whether it is the government of those countries which are funding or private citizens. i think that is absolutely right a t iran doesn't have monopoly on its support of inch.c radical and when you look at it from the israel, as nt of crazy as it sounds, if israel say, al hoose between, qaeda or hezbollah, they may well choose the former. i think for israel the really n in syria has become a choice of least options. you have these radical groups ho are killing one another but one thing they have in common is
enemity toward israel. so the caller makes a useful iran certainly doesn't have a monopoly on its islamism.r radical and if you look a decade or two to see where sy there are overlapping interests united states and iran in opposing these radical sunni islamist forces. the taliban in afghanistan was one example. it was a missed opportunity. i think that in syria and the ps that is going to other opportunity. that was the tpeufirst point. he first question he asked was about the behavior of the united iran.s toward it is absolutely true that if through the 1979 revolution and subsequent crisis, u.s.-iran enmity
place for over three decades. he first decade of the revolution from, say, 1979 to 1989 or so, i think the united continued to view iran through the prism of the cold war war. if you read the history of this peri president reagan really an attempt to reach out to iran to prevent going under the sway of the soviet union. ended, i cold war in thergue that for many national security establishment what united states replaced communism as enemy umber one was islamic radicalism. in that context iran came to the world as a very important boogie death to e of its
america rhetoric and support of groups that support israel's existence. actor who never won is 100% correct and the other is zero percent correct. the united states has made errors over the years in its iran policy. as a more macro and if the obama int, administration -- again its key figures, secretary of state and secretary of defense, vice ent barack obama, resident biden, if they could bush a button and build confidence with the iranian government i would argue they to do that ir best because of the fact that iran lays such an -- has such an important influence on key u.s. national security challenges. to thepose that question leadership in tehran would you
pwubut the -- button and norm normalize relations with the i'm skeptical that ayatollah khomeini would see interests because for the last three decades he argue what i would he describes as resistance again rejection of israel's existence, has inextricable an part of his political identity. one of the sees as symbolic pillars of the revolution. normalization of relations between the united states and iran probably wouldn't change the life of most citizens. i don't think they would go around and see the world or theirly differently lines really wouldn't be changed. but for iranians it would be sea change. after three decades of hearing their leader say death to opposing america, that would be quite a change all
sudden to see some type of friendship between the two countries. bachelor'suest has a degree from the university of johns n, masters from hopkins. karim sadjadpour is senior associate with the middle east endowment carnegie nd regular contributor to bbc nd national radio, do you travel to iran? guest: i'm no longer able to go to iran. i was there was 2005, around the time of president ahmadinejad's election. and i was informed after that it if i were to go back -- is like hotel california. i can go but i couldn't leave if i were to go back. host: how come? guest: i think the vast majority academics or analysts and especially many of the iranian iranian-american journalists who have worked on iran over the
-- several of them in prison time included one in prison now or been intimidate d and for purposed to leave. o i would have been in that category. i compare my circumstances to many of my colleagues and what i in tehran was a wrist slap. ut several did experience imprisonment, torture in prison. the question at which many have is whether under rohani's presidency is the environment in iran going to tolerant to journalists and analysts and scholars. i think that remains to be seen. rohani won't be inaugurated until august of this year. so, many are hoping that it will change the circumstances of iran.rchers on host: we have gilbert, arizona,
on the line. an independent. caller: i want to say that in my and the u.s.a.el are natural allies. they don't have any real natural antagonism. it is all political. iran and how close the u.s. were prior to the revolution. look like your guest said in the 1980's, president reagan, sharon, they all wanted to help iran. i think they are just trying to bring iran to the table. hostilitiesany real between the west and iran. guest to know what your thinks in terms of the three being natural allies. guest: i think that is a very perceptive point. agree with it. i mentioned the quote about kissinger and that is from the of real politic. he said there are few nations
more he united states has common interest and less reason to quarrel. from the perspective of that is relations absolutely right. then you look at it from the the iran-israel often forget ple iran continues to have the second largest jewish community the middle east after israel, a community that goes back 2,500 years. -- the ypes of antagonism or antipathy which arabs feel toward israel because of the palestinian cause cause, it is not that it doesn't exist in iran, but it is not as in iran as otivator for the arab world. in fact, if you talk to many they may feel more the arabs than jews or israelis.
caller's distininstincts are right. a natural enmity 2010 the united states and iran -- between the united states and iran. nations are competitive with one another. if you look at south america, argentina are competitive with one another. areurope france and germany competitive. but that doesn't have to anifest itself in the types of antagonism we see now between iran and israel. viewer by 's a twitter who wants to know what normalize means when it comes to u.s. are normalized relations? can you define that? be t: the first step would having an embassy in each other's countries. at the iranian -- is no here is no american embassy in tehran, which is staffed by u.s. diplomats. government, the swiss embassy which handles the
united states.e and in washington, d.c., there embassy.nian there is an iranian ntersection, which if you have an iranian pass porpt and live n -- passport and live in america you can use that to renew the passport or americans iran can get it visas. but it doesn't function as an embassy. ambassador iranian in washington. that would be the first step of normalization. ost: let's get a call from reston, virginia. it is democrat. good morning, mr. sadjadpour. i'm from your next door neighbor afghanistan. i have two questions. -- irst one, tkaourbg during ahmadinejad's there were at least 2.2 million afghanistans
iraqis that 000 live in iran. they have been there over 30 and don't get support from government. see dr. rohani would change that or will there be change? during nd question is the 1979 time i believe there billion of 25 iranian money in the stock exchange. i want to know if there is still money there. thank you for taking my call. guest: thank you, caller. caller is right, over the given the cades, ivil war in afghanistan iran accommodated over two million afghan refugees. since gone down but it still is pretty sizable. those is true that refugees, the afghanistan refugees in iran, haven't been treated.well they are not given equal rights.
for them toifficult get gainful employment. manual doing a lot of labor and construction jobs. t is often very difficult for them to send their children to school. i n i was based in tehran would say afghanistan school childr hildren, afghanistan children who should be in school selling chewing gum or shoelaces on the streets. i think this is something which is unfortunate. personally have tremendous afghanistans and the plight of afghanistans. really they that have been integral to the last few onomy the decades because they have worked tremendously hard and done jobs citizens iranian haven't wanted to do. ut they haven't been well treated. the caller's question is whether
change icy is going to under hassan rohani. i would saytatement that under him the hope is that a n is going to become somewhat more tolerant place for who live in ple iran, whether that is women, ethnic and is religious minorities, whether that is youth, and i hope that apply to afghan refuse gentlemens as well. as well.fugees but we should not have undue xpectations that suddenly afghans will be given equal rights. time will take a long before that takes place. about ond question was iran's frozen assets after the 1979 revolution. this remains a huge point of contention between washington tehran because iran continues to claim that it has
assets of dollars of which have been frozen abroad and have accumulated interest the years. the first step for the united would to show good will be to unfreeze those assets. you talk to americans who say thathe matter they is not true. that iran has essentially been becoack. when we come to the stage of the two countries sitting down and to work out their differences, that is going to be going to which is require a lot of negotiation. host: our guest has been karim the carnegie endowment for international peace senior associate there. for your time and insight. guest: pleasure being with you. your questions and comments and tweets and facebook postings. we will be back tomorrow, i've day 7:00 with the "washington
journal". tomorrow we will have jonathan alt alter. talk about the president's second term and lessons learned during the 2012 campaign. we will meet david gruber. safety net hospitals have a larger percent of uninsured. gerald shur founder of the witness protection program. since its founding the government has helped provide number offor a select witnesses testifying and assisting in federal cases. how the alk about government determines who gets accepted and security risks and like that. all of that tomorrow on the "washington journal." enjoy the rest of your weekend. see you tomorrow.